coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants are mother and daughter. They were born in 1945 and 1972 respectively, and live in Kyiv, Ukraine.
5.  At the material time the companies “Spetsenergobud” (дочірнє підприємство «Спеценергобуд») (a subsidiary of “Kyivenergobud” (ВАТ «Київенергобуд»)) and “Atomspetsbud” (Державна будівельно-промислова компанія «Атомспецбуд») were owned by the State. By 29 May 1996 “Kyivenergobud” had been privatised and the State no longer held any shares in it. Atomspetsbud is still owned by the State.
6.  Spetsenergobud and Atomspetsbut were engaged in work on eliminating the consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe.
7.  On 8 December 1998 the Vatutinsky District Court of Kyiv awarded Mr S. – the applicants’ husband and father, respectively – salary arrears in the amount of 5,635 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] to be paid by his former employer, Atomspetsbud.
8.  When that judgment became final, the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce it.
9.  On 19 March 2003 Mr S. died. According to the applicants, they are the only heirs of Mr S.
10.  In the course of the enforcement proceedings the sum of UAH 290.16 was paid to the applicants. The remainder of the debt under the judgment of 8 December 1998 has still not been paid.
11.  By an order of the Ministry of Energy dated 27 June 2002, Atomspetsbud was liquidated and a liquidation commission established. As a result, the State Bailiffs’ Service terminated the existing enforcement proceedings and all the writs of enforcement were forwarded to the liquidation commission as creditors’ claims.
12.  The liquidation proceedings are still pending.
13.  Both applicants worked for Spetsenergobud. In 1998 they resigned.
14.  On 17 December 1998 by two separate judgments the Vatutinsky District Court of Kyiv awarded the first and the second applicants salary arrears owed to them in the amounts of UAH 4,555.37[2] and UAH 1,137.88[3], respectively, by their former employer.
15.  When those judgments became final, the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce them. On 12 March 2004 those proceedings were terminated as it could not be established that the debtor company had any assets. No information as to whether the applicants challenged the decisions of 12 March 2004 and what other measures were taken by them after that date (for instance, measures aimed to have the enforcement proceedings reinstituted, or to join the liquidation proceedings as creditors, and so on) is available.
16.  The applicants state that the judgments in question have still not been enforced due to the lack of funds of the debtor company. They never claimed damages from the State Bailiffs’ Service.
17.  According to an excerpt from the official companies’ register, in April 2007 the debtor company was under liquidation. However, it is not clear when the liquidation proceedings were instituted and whether they are still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Ercsi.
5.  On 19 August 1998 the applicant, a truck driver, was involved in a multiple road accident. Subsequently he was interrogated as a suspect for having negligently caused the death of six people and the serious injury of five others, three of whom became permanently disabled.
6.  After several hearings at which numerous witnesses testified and the opinions of several experts were obtained, on 9 April 2002 the Miskolc District Court acquitted the applicant.
7.  On 6 November 2002 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court quashed this judgment as unfounded.
8.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court held four hearings. On 6 May 2004 it found the applicant guilty as charged. It held that, apart from the responsibility of another driver who had died in the multiple collisions, the accident had essentially been caused by the applicant’s failure to maintain the brakes of his truck and his grossly negligent driving. The applicant’s offence was punishable with two to eight years’ imprisonment. The District Court took account of the protraction of the proceedings as an important mitigating factor and sentenced him to three and a half years’ imprisonment and a four-year prohibition on driving.
9.  On appeal, on 13 October 2004 the Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction but reduced his sentence to two and a half years’ imprisonment and a three-year prohibition on driving.
10.  As a consequence of a successful intervening constitutional complaint concerning a procedural rule applied in the applicant’s case, on 4 July 2005 the Attorney General’s Office introduced a motion for a review by the Supreme Court.
11.  On 3 October 2005 the Supreme Court’s review bench quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case to it.
12.  In the resumed second-instance proceedings, a motion for bias lodged by the applicant was dismissed the Debrecen Court of Appeal. The hearings scheduled for 28 June and 20 September 2006 had to be postponed for non-attendance by the applicant’s representative. After another hearing on 8 November, on 27 November 2006 the Regional Court acquitted the applicant.
13.  On 21 June 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. This decision was served on 19 September 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Moscow.
5.  In February 1996 the applicant’s neighbour caused a flood in the applicant’s flat. According to the applicant, she sent a statement of claims to the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow by regular mail in November 1996. She sought compensation for damage caused by her neighbour. It is unclear whether the applicant’s statement was received by the District Court.
6.  On 14 January 1997 the applicant resubmitted her tort action against her neighbour to the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow. On 10 October 1997 the proceedings were stayed pending an expert examination. They were subsequently resumed on 10 March 1998 with no examination having been performed.
7.  From 28 April 1998 to 17 February 1999 several hearings were adjourned either because the defendant had not attended or because the judge was busy on another case.
8.  On 17 February 1999 another expert examination was ordered. The parties refused to pay for it. The examination was not performed and on 13 May 1999 the experts returned the case file to the District Court. On 8 June 1999 and 10 April 2000 the court made an offer to the applicant to pay for the expert report. According to the Government, she did not reply to the offer.
9.  On 3 August 2000 the Basmanniy District Court resumed the proceedings.
10.  On 15 August 2000 the hearing was adjourned because the parties had not attended. On 24 August 2000 the Basmanniy District Court refused to examine the action because the parties had again failed to appear.
11.  On 4 September 2000 the applicant complained to the Moscow City Court that she had not been properly notified of the hearing of 24 August 2000 and had been unable to attend.
12.  On 8 September 2000 the Moscow City Court quashed the decision of 24 August 2000 and ordered the proceedings to be resumed. A hearing was listed for 6 December 2000.
13.  From 6 December 2000 to 3 June 2002 several hearings were adjourned either because the defendant had not attended or had asked for an adjournment or because the judge was busy on another case.
14.  On 3 June 2002 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow granted the applicant’s action in part and awarded her 10,000 Russian roubles as compensation for damage.
15.  On 22 October 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
16.  On many occasions in 2001-2002 the applicant complained to various domestic officials, including the Supreme Judicial Appointments Board, the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of Russia, the Moscow City Court, and the Ministry of Justice, of the excessive length of the proceedings in her case.
17.  It appears that her complaints were either left unanswered or redirected to the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow.
4.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Gaziantep.
5.  In 2000 the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (“the Ministry”) expropriated two plots of land belonging to the applicant (plot no. 247 in block no. 103 and plot no. 14 in block no. 130) in Erenköy village, Nizip, for the construction of the Birecik dam.
6.  On 23 May 2000 the applicant brought two separate actions before the Nizip Civil Court for additional compensation.
7.  On 22 and 25 December 2000 respectively the Nizip Civil Court awarded the applicant additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 9 June 2000 (judgments nos. 2000/5137 and 2000/4790).
8.  On 9 July 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgments of the first‑instance court.
9.  On 30 April 2003 the Ministry made a partial payment to the applicant, namely 23,449,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] for plot no. 247 and TRL 13,494,000,000[2] for plot no. 14.
10.  On 2 May 2003 the Birecik Execution Office issued a payment order to the Ministry where it informed the latter that it had an outstanding debt of TRL 3,073,350,480[3] for plot no. 247 and TRL 1,804,328,414[4] for plot no. 14.
11.  On 28 June 2007 the applicant’s representative sent a letter to the Ministry whereby he agreed to accept the calculations made by the administration for the discharge of its outstanding debt.
12.  On 8 July 2008 the Government informed the Court that they had not yet made any further payments to the applicant to discharge their outstanding debt.
5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently serving a life sentence in a prison in Turkey.
6.  On 18 July 1995 the applicant was arrested in Istanbul on suspicion of killing a person on behalf of the PKK[1]. The same day he was placed in police custody, where two statements were taken from him by police officers.
7.  On 31 July 1995 he was brought before a prosecutor and a judge, who questioned him further. The judge remanded the applicant in custody pending the introduction of criminal proceedings against him.
8.  On 2 August 1995 the prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, accusing the applicant and five other persons of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory. He sought the death penalty under Article 125 of the Criminal Code.
9.  Criminal proceedings began before the Istanbul State Security Court (“the trial court”) on 30 October 1995.
10.  During the 31st hearing held on 28 February 2001, the applicant’s lawyer requested the trial court to release the applicant on bail. In the request the lawyer also referred to a number of judgments adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in cases concerning Article 5 of the Convention. The request for release was refused by the trial court. The objection lodged against the refusal was also rejected on 9 May 2001.
11.  On 17 April 2002 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to death. The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment on 24 September 2002. An appeal lodged by the applicant against his conviction was dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 10 June 2003.
4. On 4 February 1998 the applicant brought a civil claim against her employer, seeking compensation for unpaid salary and social security contributions. On 6 July 2000 the employer was divided into three separate companies (“the successors”).
5. Between 16 October 1998 and 10 September 2001 the first instance court scheduled fifteen hearings, none of which was adjourned on the applicant’s request. It ordered expert examination of the applicant’s claim and heard evidence from witnesses. The employer’s counter claim against the applicant was dismissed five months after it had been submitted. During the proceedings, the applicant made more specific claims on four occasions.
6. On 10 September 2001 the Gevgelija Court of First Instance allowed the applicant’s claim and ordered the successors jointly to pay her unpaid salary and to pay social security contributions to the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund. The total award amounted to 486, 557 Macedonian denars (MKD) (approximately 7, 940 euros) plus trial costs. This decision was served on the applicant on 26 June 2002.
7. On 11 July 2002 the successors appealed. On 7 October 2002 the applicant submitted her arguments in reply.
8. On 24 October 2002 the Gevgelija Court of First Instance dismissed the successors’ appeal as having been submitted out of time.
9. On 22 November 2002 the successors appealed, arguing that the first-instance court had wrongly calculated the time-limit. On 26 June 2003 the first-instance court ordered the successors to pay the court’s fees.
10. On 30 December 2003 the successors withdrew their appeal.
11. Between 1 April and 26 June 2004 the applicant requested the first-instance court to expedite the proceedings on three occasions.
12. On 15 July 2004 the Gevgelija Court of First Instance rejected the successors’ appeal as having been withdrawn.
13. On 21 September 2004 the first-instance court’s decision of 10 September 2001 became final.
b. Insolvency proceedings against the successors
14. Between March 2002 and June 2003 three separate sets of insolvency proceedings were initiated in respect of the successors. The last successor was liquidated in September 2003. The receiver was ordered to enforce the liquidation by public sale of that successor’s assets. The applicant filed a request to have her claim recognised only in respect of that successor. On 9 September 2003 the first-instance court partly allowed the applicant’s claim. No information has been provided as to what actions were taken in respect of the court’s sale order.
5.  The applicants’ names and other details are indicated in the appended table. All the applicants were members of the Russian military forces and took part in peace-keeping operations in former Yugoslavia and/or in other military missions outside the Russian Federation.
6.  In 2001 they sued the military unit no. 03611 before the Ryazan Garnison Military Court for payment of outstanding daily allowance allegedly due to them on account of their military missions abroad. The court granted the applicants’ claims (see dates of the judgments and sums awarded in the appended table). The judgments were not appealed against and became binding and enforceable on the dates indicated in the appended table.
7.  The judgments of 11 December 2001 were not enforced. On 6 November 2002 the Presidium of the Moscow Circuit Military Court decided, upon its President’s request for supervisory review, to quash these judgments in view of an erroneous application of material law and sent the cases for a new consideration to the Ryazan Garnison Military Court (judgments Nos. 338п/г, 339п/г and 341п/г). The applicants did not attend the hearing. It does not appear from the case-file that the applicants or their counsel had been informed of the supervisory-review proceedings or that they were able to take part in these proceedings.
8.  On 9 and 10 April 2003 the Ryazan Garnison Military Court reconsidered the cases and dismissed the applicants’ claims. These judgments were upheld on appeal by the Moscow Circuit Military Court on 10 and 17 June 2003 and thus became final.
9.  The judgments of 13 and 20 December 2001 in favour of S. Panchenko were enforced on 3 April 2006 and 24 April 2003 respectively. On 2 June 2006 the Ryazan Garnison Military Court partially granted this applicant’s claim for compensation of the inflation losses due to the delay in the execution of the judgment of 13 December 2001. The court awarded compensation for the inflation losses occurred between 1 January 2006 and 31 March 2006, i.e. a sum of 12 428.64 RUB instead of 124,350.48 RUB claimed by the applicant for the total delay in enforcement.
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Dunaegyháza.
5.  On 19 March 1999 the applicant brought an action against a cooperative of which he was an external shareholder. He claimed that a resolution of the cooperative establishing the value of his share was wrong.
6.  On 11 December 2001 the Kunszentmiklós District Court dismissed his action. On 31 January 2002 it completed this decision with a ruling concerning the costs.
7.  On appeal, on 3 October 2002 the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court reversed these decisions, found for the applicant in an interim decision and quashed the resolution in question. In the ensuing proceedings, on 17 March 2004 the District Court awarded the applicant 258,000 Hungarian forints plus accrued interest. On 2 September 2004 the Regional Court upheld this ruling in a partial decision.
8.  However, on 12 May 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 3 October 2002 and upheld the original decision of 11 December 2001, in which the applicant’s claim had been rejected. The Supreme Court pointed out that the Regional Court’s interim findings entitling the applicant – only an external shareholder – to certain payments, which were reserved for actual members, were wrong. This decision was received at the District Court with a view to despatching on 17 June 2005.
5.  The applicants were born in 1975, 1970, 1972, 1967, 1963, 1972, 1961 and 1972 respectively, and live in the town of Şölen.
6.  The applicants were all employed as manual workers by the Şölen Town Council (hereafter “the Town Council”) until their contracts of employment were terminated by the Town Council on 29 April 1999.
7.  On various dates in 1999 the applicants brought proceedings before the Ergani Civil Court of First Instance against the Town Council and claimed their unpaid salaries and other pecuniary rights to which they were entitled under the applicable legislation.
8.  The applicants' claims were partly accepted by the Ergani Civil Court in its decisions adopted on 3 November 1999 and 30 December 1999.
9.  Between December 1999 and March 2000 the applicants initiated enforcement proceedings against the Town Council and sought to obtain the sums awarded to them by the Ergani Civil Court together with statutory interest.
10.  The sums claimed by the applicants were as follows:
 
Application no.
Applicant
Amount in Turkish liras
Approximate amount in Euros
42894/04
Mehmet Arat
791,793,180
1,440
42904/04
Haci[2] Atsız
1,481,705,734
2,700
42905/04
Mehmet Atsız (son of Hakim)
3,670,205,743 
6,680
42906/04
Edip Çelik
3,299,888,955
6,000
42907/04
Ramazan Alaca
3,409,954,582
6,200
42908/04
Erdal Güneş
976,729,112
1,780
42909/04
Mehmet Atsız
4,918,063,504
8,950
42910/04
Mehmet Can
2,792,467,421
5,080
11.  In the course of the enforcement proceedings, the applicants unsuccessfully attempted to recover their monies from the Town Council's bank accounts at the State owned Ziraat Bank. The bank refused to make the payments on the ground that the monies deposited there by the Town Council had been allocated to a special fund earmarked for public services. Following this, the Town Council transferred all their monetary assets to the special fund to circumvent the Ergani Civil Court's decisions.
12.  At the time of the adoption of the present judgment the applicants' attempts at recovering their monies were still continuing.
4.  The applicants were born in 1948 and 1955 respectively and live in Glinica.
5.  On 27 November 1995 the first applicant lodged a claim for payment of compensation for the seizure of his property. On 13 May 1998 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment. On 24 June 1999 the Katowice Court of Appeal partly remitted the case. On 6 November 2003 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment. The first applicant appealed. On 9 June 2004 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. According to an assessment made by two lawyers, a cassation appeal lacked any prospects of success.
6.  In a letter of 5 December 2004 the first applicant informed the Court that he did not intend to make use of the remedies provided by the Law of 17 June 2004 (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
7.  On 25 November 2002 the applicants filed an action against the State Treasury with the Gliwice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). They claimed compensation for the unlawful annulment of a contract by a public official.
8.  On 27 December 2002 the Gliwice Regional Court ordered that the applicants rectify certain formal shortcomings in their statement of claim.
9.  On 18 November 2003 the Court dismissed the applicants’ request to be exempted from court fees. The applicants appealed. On 19 February 2004 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the Regional Court’s decision and exempted the applicants from court fees.
10.  On 24 March 2004 the Gliwice Regional Court found that it did not have the competence to deal with the subject-matter and referred the case to the Katowice Regional Court.
11.  The first hearing in the case was held on 26 January 2005.
12.  On 16 May 2007 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment and granted the applicants’ claim in part.
13.  Both parties lodged appeals against the first-instance judgment.
14.  On 8 November 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals.
15.  It appears that both parties lodged cassation appeals and the case is pending before the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
16.  On 21 December 2004 the applicants lodged a complaint under section 5 of the 2004 Act. They particularly referred to the Gliwice and Katowice Regional Courts’ inactivity between the date the claim had been filed with the Gliwice Court and the date the first hearing had been scheduled. They sought just satisfaction in the amount of 20,000 Polish zlotys (PLN), that is, PLN 10,000 each.
17.  On 10 March 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ complaint. The court held that the 2004 Act had legal effect as from its entry into force on 17 September 2004. It found that during the relevant part of the proceedings, there had been no inactivity or undue delay on the part of the authorities. In that connection, the court held that there had been no breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time in the period after 17 September 2004.